CdnFox
-
Posts
17,783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
182
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CdnFox
-
-
8 minutes ago, blackbird said:
Its simple logic. Nothing does not produce something.
Man - this concept has been disproved so many times it isn't funny. Both in science and philosophy.
Something does frequently come from nothing. Go study quantum physics for a short while and you'll realize that. Futher there's nothing that suggests that there was 'nothing' before the big bang.
I'll save the philosophy for your next one which is basically the same.
11 minutes ago, blackbird said:Secondly, because of the intricate design and complexity, there had to have been information put into the universe for it to function.
this is scientifically complete nonsense. We see complex interactions all the time with zero interaction with 'god'. In fact - we can explain precisely how things came to be the way it is today going back to about one millionth of a second or so after the big bang. There's no need for god to explain any of it - we KNOW it can happen just fine without him.
In fact - the outcome was INEVITABLE given the input parameters. So it would have required god like powers to prevent it from happening.
And further - Your argument is that nothing complex can just come into existence. But - that means god must have complexity, and if nothing complex can just come into existence without design then someone must have made god! He's very complex - he couldn't just have come into existence. Soooo either complex things CAN come into existence on their own OR you're worshiping a middleman.
Intelligent design is one of the LEAST successful arguments for god. That one got trashed many many years ago.
17 minutes ago, blackbird said:It boils down to simple logic.
If your 'logic' is an example then what it really boils down to is self delusion. Not the same thing.
17 minutes ago, blackbird said:There is no viable alternative explanation for the existence of everything.
There are tonnes of viable explanations. Did you think Christianity was the only religion with a creation myth? Those are all just as plausable. And frankly as i said science can explain it just fine without a god at all. And occam's razor suggests that means god LIKELY doesn't exist.
Sorry - that's not proof. That's the kind of thing even first year scientists or philosophy students roll their eyes at.
So - you couldn't prove it. Yet you demand i accept it. Guess you and the dinosaur boys have more in common than you thought
-
4 minutes ago, blackbird said:
LOL You need to relax a bit and think instead of going bizzerk.
Sorry - watching excessive levels of dumb try to explain things is a little frustrating. Could you help out and be a bit smarter at all?
4 minutes ago, blackbird said:God created everything you see around you. reated that way.
God created nothing. Prove me wrong.
You're no better than those who insist evolution is 'proven'.
-
42 minutes ago, Moonbox said:
and yet you're the one that just moments ago embarrassed yourself trying to tell me I brought up the Nasdaq, when it was you.
Sure. Even I make mistakes sometimes
It's pretty damn rare but i do, and when i do i own them. That's what men do. I've got no problem with that.
What YOU do is pretend you never said it, cry like a baby, try to change the channel and generally flail about
Which of us would you say handles that better?
QuoteThen they're probably bad investors, because that's dumb.
Is that based on the millions of dollars you've earned in the stock market? Oh... wait...
44 minutes ago, Moonbox said:I'm intelligent enough not to be -50% in a -20% market,
Are you. I'll bet good money you're not even in the stock market and haven't got a clue about investing. Some of the things you said certainly point to that. So all we can say is that you're "smart enough" to look at things AFTER the fact and say "Now that i know what the stocks actually did, i can pick ones that did better than others". Yeah - thats everybody "genius". It's very easy after the fact.
48 minutes ago, Moonbox said:The majority of do-it-yourselfers do, but that's because they've no clue what they're doing.
Unlike you, the investment genius with no investments
A man who's "Smart enough" to get rich on the stock market as long as he gets to pick AFTER he sees what the stocks do LOLOLOL!!!
90 - 95 percent of investors lose money in the stock markets, depending who's stats you like. And i doubt you'd do better.
Whereas the vast majority of people who bought bitcoin have made money and lots of it. The VAST majority.
So - bottom line. PP was mostly right about crypto - it is an investment choice canadians should have and there's value in having access to it and regulation of it in the form of an exchange. And yes the BoC has royally screwed up.
Oh - and i'm sorry it hurts your head to read so much.
-
1 hour ago, blackbird said:
The fact is the word reason is a very broad and lose word that can be applied to anything.
It just isn't. "reason' is pretty well defined. It's simply a series of logical and rational facts and grounds that lead to a complete explanation of a conclusion or observable thing
You can't just dump god in there like you've taken Deus ex Machina to some weird new level.
As for your example....
Dude - that was the worst example ever. And so full of holes it isn't funny. First off - YOU ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM SUCH THINGS!!! God is NOT observable - there is NOTHING in our universe that we can't explain without god - yet you INSIST IT"S FACT!!!! THAT IS MY PROBLEM with your arguments!
Yet JUST like them YOU insist it's absolute fact.
All you did is say how stupid it is for others to do exactly what you do!! Go smak yourself in the head with a bat and see if it helps!
How do you not get that it's bad in one case and therefore ITS ALSO BAD IN YOURS?!?! Gad it's SO frustrating, it's like you've clutched on to religion as a security blanket so tight that it suffocated your brain.
-
11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:
Just make private insurance mandatory.
The cost of public healthcare is crappy healthcare?
Well not exactly.
It's important to always divide healthcare into two parts - the provisioning and the funding. In Canada currently we mostly have gov't funding AND provisioning of health care. Which means when you're sick you go to a gov't owned hospital with gov't paid nurses and they'll use gov't owned equipment and medicine to treat you.
In the states it's both private - you personally pay for a private hospital etc etc.
In many countries with "public' healthcare the gov't only pays for the care, it doesn't pay for all the provisioning. It may pay for some, but most countries allow for private provisioning of health care with private facilities providing the services which are paid for out of the public purse.
A gov't may not have 30 million kicking around to build a new hospital - BUT private individuals might get together and decide to build one and treat people and the gov't foots that bill.
The benefit is that private facilities tend to run cheaper and more efficiently AND most of all private dollars tend to be MUCH faster and better at moving services where they're needed.
We already have some of that. But a lot of our issues might go away if we leaned into that a little more.
-
7 hours ago, myata said:
In what kind of democracy the right of citizens to know what's going on in their country depends on a whim of minor political functionaries?
The kind where voters make bad decisions.
-
QuoteSo the Star asked Abacus Data to take a closer look into Trudeau’s particular unpopularity among men — to see from where it originates and what drives it.And yes, in this 4,000-respondent poll by Abacus, carried out in early February, the gender gap is glaringly evident: a full 52 per cent of men reported a negative view of Trudeau, compared to 44 per cent women.But things get really interesting when you look at voters with “very negative” views, the type Trudeau knows are not going to believe him, no matter what he says.“So 36 per cent of men in Canada, over one in three, have a very negative view of the prime minister,” says Abacus CEO David Coletto. “They really, really don’t like him.” Women who reported “very negative” views, on the other hand, numbered around 26 per cent. “Men tend to dislike the prime minister more than women,” Coletto says.It’s not unusual for a prime minister to be unpopular, especially after seven years in office, but Coletto says the opposition to Trudeau among male voters is intensely personal, and as emotional as he’s ever seen in his political polling in Canada.“I mean, Stephen Harper wasn’t beloved or loved at any point when he was in office, and people didn’t really like him,” Coletto says, “But it wasn’t as deeply emotional … They usually didn’t like him because they fundamentally disagreed on policy, whereas these people disagree with Trudeau on policies but it goes far deeper — they don’t like him as a person.”Wow. I can't imagine why
-
https://nationalpost.com/news/ndp-vote-katie-telford-testify-interference
Who whoooooo - so he could continue to back the libs be forever labelled as their lapdog OR he can turn on them but POSSIBLY paint himself into a corner where there's an election that he does not want right now.
It'll be interesting to see which way he leaps. If he's smart he'll compel telford. But he does have to be very careful not to be cast as being 'anti chinese'
-
Just now, Americana Antifa said:
That's a no. ?
That's a absolute yes.
Just now, Americana Antifa said:There's not a single news station that I completely agree with.
Sure - you only agree with them if they carry a story that supports your echo chamber and gives you that nice confirmation bias glow.
Otherwise they're just fake news you see.
Just now, Americana Antifa said:However, only right-wing media regularly just makes up stuff. For like a month Fox was lying about Biden banning hamburgers. Then they moved on to lying about Biden banning gas stoves. I don't like liberal media either, but stations like CNN and MSNBC don't do that.
they absolutely do that. Remember the story about the christian boys who "assaulted' the first nations leader? Complete fabrication.
Just now, Americana Antifa said:They may get things wrong, but they don't make up lies.
Brad Williams is a liberal, dipshit.
Yes. A left wing dipshit.
Just now, Americana Antifa said:And look what happened. MSNBC made him resign because, as bad as liberal media is, they have SOME standards.
Nope - they were fearful of the backlash that advertisers were dropping as a result not wanting to be associated with their lies. And actually he resigned, they didn't even have the balls to fire him.
Just now, Americana Antifa said:They don't allow people on who make up stories like conservatives do.
Sure they do - i gave examples.
-
9 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:
Good question. Maybe it's the submissive and cowardly nature one needs to become a conservative in the first place. That would explain why they're all such muschis. There actually have been studies on the brains of right-leaning people and left-leaning people. Right-leaning people are more fearful, which makes sense.
Well the difference there is that religious identity is much wider in scope. Most Muslims are just born into Islam and ignore most of the Koran.
Wow - talk about spreading hate talk - so conservatives are inferior people as well
Practically sub human to listen to you - all full of fear. Scared of every stranger they meet if i recall your other thread. Maybe something should be done about them?
What were you saying about sounding like a nazi? As you sit here spouting lies to dehumanize people?
-
2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:
Are you illiterate?
No i can read your lies just fine.
2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:I told you I don't think Peterson realizes he's spreading a nazi theory. He really is stupid enough to just repeat the things he sees in memes without doing any research.
Ahhhh so he's an accidental nazi.
2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:How is it not nazi propaganda?
In the same way that thinking russia sucks isn't nazi propaganda. I mean, most people today think that. The nazis' may have held a similar belief (and did). But it's not nazi propaganda to speak out against russia today just because the nazi's did.
2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:This is a conspiracy theory recycled from literal nazi propaganda. The only difference is that the part about the Jews is implied, whereas the original theory outright says it's the Jews.
THe right likes the jews. It's the left that hates the jews these days. And who was this person who 'recycled' this?
And it's not the same theory. And Peterson explains in excruciating detail how he's come to his conclusions today. If there's one thing about the man, he always shows his work.
So. What that means is you've been brainwashed into thinking that something that sort of sounds a little like what the nazi's sounded like sort of must therefore be nazi propaganda.
The nazi's really pushed taking care of your parents in their old age as well. So... seniors facilites are nazi propaganda i supposed?
-
Just now, Americana Antifa said:
I know, but you're actually using this insane way of thinking in your arguments.
No i'm not. I've literally never said that once except as an obvious joke. Those are just the voices in your head talking to you.
I said they weren't capitalists because their system incorporates too much state control and ownership. Jezuz - do you EVER say anything truthful?
2 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:But that's not Socialism.
Sure it is. The workers control the means of production through the state. Badda bing badda boom.
You didn't think that ALL the workers would actually DIRECTLY control ALL the means of production did you? Call a vote to determine if john over here can take the day off sick? Obviously not.
So socialsm means someone managing the workers control. Now we're just talking about who. It certainly doesn't have to be democratic at all, in fact that would just get in the way.
Like i said - in the end it's one of the big problems with socialism.
Socialists have to pretend socialism is democratic because otherwise they'll have to admit the truth that it's essentially dictatorship by the elites which doesn't sound as good.
6 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:You do realize this logic could be used against liberal democracy too, right?
No you're getting confused again, You're conflating the method of choosing representation with the type of economic model. Neither capitalism nor socalism actually requires democracy (in fact socialism doesn't work well with democracy) - but if you take democracy out of a democratic model then no, you don't have non democratic democracy. So no - it doesn't work with liberal democracy - if you take the democracy out then you've just got liberal dictatorship or oligarchy or whatever you replaced the democracy with.
-
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:
Because the Nasdaq is only a tiny portion of the overall stock market (one of the riskiest parts) and the broader indices aren't down anywhere close to that? ?
Ohhh reeaaaally
Kid - sorry the facts didn't fit your echo chamber but they all did pretty bad to one degree or another - wtih the s&p down about 20 percent and russel down 22, and that's the average. A lot of stocks within those markets did much worse.
Sorry kid -you're bleating ain't getting you any closer.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:You'd have to be a retard gambler to have lost 50% in this market, but these are the people you are meeting, so I guess it's very possible. ?♂️
Actually i'm sure many lost more than that. Most people only have 4 or 5 stocks in tehir portfolio and it just takes one or two to tank for them to lose most of their wealth.
But - at the end of the day they lost that money. There WAS a stock market crash. People dId suffer significant losses and as i've said i've seen people who lost up to 50 percent themselves. I'm sure there are people who lost more. And some who lost less but the vast majority of people lost.
You don't even remember why you were arguing about this do you. You just think as long as you bleat like a goat with it's nuts in a gopher trap somehow you'll magically make a point some day.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:Not unless they're brainlets, because that means not only did they invest 100% into the Nasdaq (which nobody should ever really do, and certainly not pensioners), it also means they picked nothing but the worst performing Nasdaq stocks ??
Unless they invest in an equity stock fund most people don't have money in a lot of different stocks. They have a few.
But yes, sure - you're the only intelligent investor around. You know it all - that's why you're so filthy rich right? Right? Hellllooooooo....
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:Yeah it's almost like you can go back and read people's posts and see what they actually said.
And when i do it shows you're lying. Like that one the other day i posted where you said word for word what i claimed you did and you denied EVER saying for sure absolutely 100 percent
LOL
You just hope nobody will bother. And probably most don't or don't all the time. But i can tell from the 'respect' you get from others that people don't bother because they feel they already know you're not terribly honest.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:Sure, but then there's also valuable intellectual property (like trademarks, licenses, patents etc.) that provide predictable and measurable revenue, which can be easily valuated.
In most cases no - turns out to be worthless. Remember - the majority of investors wind up losing money in the stock market.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:Nope. Speculation is ever-present, but the best investors are basing it on data, research and actually interviewing company management, among other things. It's not like the doofus crypto-bros and their useless TA charts.
MOST investors lose money. And it is because MOST stock is traded based on speculation. There's nothing holding up that value. Sorry.
But that's why only about 5 - 10 percent actually make money at it.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:Why would I do that? I can just sell my share and know that retained earnings sitting on the company's balance sheet would be part of the price I get.
Oh noooo - fiancail report just came out and says we're going into a recession and your company will be severely impacted!! A run on the stock dropped the value by 30 percent!!!
Happens. And you've lost all those retained earnings and may sell at a loss if you intend to sell - yet nothing changed.
Sorry kiddo - you don't know how stocks work
Bit coin is no different in any way than other currency, commodity or stock market investments, It's the same thing, except with a better performance record.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:Thanks for the laughs. This was a funny thread. ?
-
2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:
Ohhh, really? Well then you wouldn't mind linking me to this story on a non-fake news site. ?
According to you ANY site that carries the story is a fake news site. So basically we're back to you being a dishonest person.
2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:Yes or no, do you really not know anything about the Fox News vs Dominion lawsuit?
Yes or no, was it a fox news story i posted?
2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:Maybe this is just an American thing, but our righty media makes up shit all the time.
Your lefty media is even worse. But - in either case none of them actually just print a completely fake story. They may HORRENDOUSLY alter it - as cnn did when they edited the tape in the tavon martin case to make the caller sound racist., but to just fake an entire incident altogether? I mean - left wing journalist brian williams lied about his chopper being shot down but there WAS actually a war going on
Your dismissal of this is just cheap and intellectually dishonest. We both know that.
-
2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:
You can say it's a joke, but this is actually the logic you're using. China calls itself socialist, so it is socialist. You're ignoring everything else.
oh my god how thick are you? It's not 'logic' - they didn't call THEMSELVES socialst they called themselves a democratic dictatorship - it's right in their constitution which is why it's funny.
2 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:And yes, Socialism requires democracy. There's no other way for the workers to control the means of production.
Nonsense. The state can simply oversee it on their behalf. That's what happens in the end anyway. Even in a democracy the workers wouldn't actually control the means of production directly, they would vote on who would do it for them. Just take out the 'vote' and you're at the same place. Someone will do it for them. LIke a property manager handling the property for his client.
That's what is so insidious about socialism and socialists.
-
31 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:
I didn't say Peterson is a nazi for disagreeing with me. I said "Cultural Marxism" is a nazi conspiracy theory, which it is.
And he's spreading it! !!!!! Ohhh but you're not calling him a nazi - just saying he's Intentionally spreading nazi propaganda on their behalf! Wtihout being one! Well - you're not saying he ISN'T you're just saying we can't prove he is just because he willingly distributes their propaganda!!"
Give me a break. You're calling him a nazi and not only is he not a nazi but neither is what he's talking about 'nazi propaganda
At least have the balls to say what you're saying instead of trying to dance around it.
-
1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:
I searched and this story only comes up on right-wing blogs.
Well that sounds like a lie. I did a quick search and there were a number of media sources and his name was in about half. I did find SOME blogs but not many.
And that's first page. I doubt your google skills are THAT much worse than mine. And doing further searches with his name gives more details.
So instead of addressing the fact you were WRONG you'd rather just stick your head in the sand and pretend the world is flat. Do you wonder why people respect the far left less and less every day?
1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:But it also shows that the NY Post prints fake news. If this is the only source for the story outside of blogs, then I can't take it seriously
I think you do more than it does. Sorry - but you're just dismissing it because you don't like it. There's no indication that paper plants entirely fake stories. Unless you have evidence that suggests it's not true then you're just being dishonest.
-
1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:
Yes, which is why China isn't socialist. Socialism requires democracy.
But it IS a democracy! Says so right in their constitution - a democratic dictatorship
Joking aside - you don't need democracy for socialism.
1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:What you're describing is State Capitalism. Not only do the workers not control the means of production, but the government does.
But the gov't IS the people. And that's no different in a socalist state.
You're trying to label things and it's not quite fitting. What we CAN say is it isn't capitalism.
-
1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:
-
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:
What did? That it crashed into the ground? I guess if a 15-20% drop of the stock market (which it does semi-regularly) means "crashing into the ground", then sure, but then you're just playing with worthless hyperbole.
You literally just posted in your previous post it was 33 percent -double your little estimate there
That's the problem with you - when you're wrong you just start pretending you didn't say things you very obviously did. If you have to lie to make a point, you haven't got a very good point.That was a harsh crash, many many people lost a huge hunk of their savings.
But hey - lie about it some more and maybe the facts will change! Right? Thats how you guys on the left think isn't it
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:"Some people", like your made up "some people" who lost 50 percent. It's just a different "some people".
No, those are people i've really met. Yours by your own admission are fake. And - the numbers certainly show there's going to be a lot like the ones i met.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:You didn't. You posted a report that said 40% of the Nasdaq's firms are down 50%, and that's how market downturns work, especially in a niche and speculative growth-oriented index like the Nasdaq.
Ok - so according to you almost half those stocks went down by 50 percent, people own those stocks, but there's no way they could be down about 50 percent.
Math isn't your thing is it.
You're really just making yourself look dumber every post. Why are you doing that?
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:The weak die, the strong survive. Unless you're trying to tell us that these poor pensioners who lost 50% were 100% invested in the worst-performing stocks in the worst-performing index, you're just making shit up. ?
Well no, that's not the only market where stocks went down that much. And tech stocks are very popular.
Sorry kiddo - it's pretty obvious you're just crybabying at this point.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:Sure, but who's arguing that it didn't?
You. And other liberals for that matter. Oh wait let me guess - having been proven wrong you will claim yet again you never EVER said that bitcoin was worse off than stocks especially compared with markets other than Nasdaq. Sigh. You're so predictable.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:No, YOU did. ? YOU linked the article about the Nasdaq, and I responded to it.
Rats, you were right there. my mistake. Well even a broken clock
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:No, because there's a hard asset there - something real, and tangible and useful.
Nope, in a lot of cases there isn't. Intellectual property that could become useless overnight, etc etc.
And it's mostly based on speculation, not asset value.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:As a shareholder, you're entitled to your share of the company's earnings, assets and profits. Whether profits get paid out as dividends, or retained as liquid assets, you're still entitled to them, and they get verified.
Nope. You're not entitled to them if they're retained. Go ahead -buy a share in microsoft and walk into the office and demand your share of the profits they didn't declare dividends on and your share of the assets.
Not how it works.
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:He said that the BoC was ruining the dollar, that crypto currency could reduce the central banks' influence, and that Canadians needed an alternative currency (or rather the freedom of choice for an alternative currency).
Which is not what you previously claimed at all.
And most of that is true. The boc has done a lot of damage to our dollar which now buys less. Crypto being normalized would indeed reduce the central bank's influence. And Canadians should have choice
1 hour ago, Moonbox said:It doesn't even work as a currency, however, because anything that can swing 50% in value over a few months is a non-starter, and then there's the simple matter that it can't operate at mainstream scale for the foreseeable future.
Most of the world's currencies are capable of swinging that much under the right conditions. Sorry to burst your bubble. And honestly the statement doesn't even make sense - it might drop that much against the us dollar but far less against the canadian if the canadian is dropping as well
and a reminder - it's still worth more than it was in 2019. which is more than we can say for the Canadian dollar.
Normalizing it will go a long way to remove the volatility So - there you go.
Sorry punkin
You were wrong again It works fine and will only get better - IF that's what people choose to use personally. I realize as a liberal you're not fond of people having choice but, sorry - they should.
It works just fine as an alternate currency same as any other currency and just like any other currency the more it's used the more it stabilizes.
-
1 minute ago, blackbird said:
You seem to place what you call facts or reason above divine revelation (Biblical truth)
They. Are. Not. The. Same.
It's like saying you put a screw above a bolt and nut. They do different jobs - they are used in different places for different things.
Your problem is you inappropriately conflate them. And to be honest that weakens your position because that's a sign of bad judgement, which calls into question your judgement regarding the scriptures
-
27 minutes ago, blackbird said:
That may be the criteria in Canada.
Not currently. They throw in 'hate speech' which is basically just saying you don't like something.
27 minutes ago, blackbird said:I am not sure about the part about infringing on the right of others because many people interpret anything contrary to their own view as infringing on their rights.
Well that is always the risk. Having said that we do have our rights relatively well defined by the courts and such a law would require that someone else demonstrate how your speech hurts their rights to a judge, and that's a little less frivolous. But sure - it has the potential to be a problem.
-
6 hours ago, blackbird said:
There are countries that outlaw any public criticism of someone else's religion. I don't think that is the case in America or Canada. There are some authoritarian countries that forbid public speaking about many subjects, places such as China, Russia, Iran, and N. Korea. Some countries you could end up in prison or even sentenced to death for saying the wrong thing.
I was wondering how far freedom of speech should be permitted to go. Should there be limits and what should those limits be? Who determines what the limits should be?
I would tend to argue that it should go to the point where you're either putting someone's life at risk, infringing on a right of theirs, or advocating for harm or illegal activty
-
2 hours ago, southwest said:
Hi,
I'm in the southwest, Australia. There's an intriguing tradition from ancient Greece where the population or state is compared with a ship. The poet Alcaeus wrote about it in sixth century BC then others such as Plato took it up. Then Cicero in Rome.
Anyway, it arrived in Ottawa. https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/HistoryArtsArchitecture/collection_profiles/CP_ship_of_state-e.htm
So I'm hoping for readers' comments on what this means. Does the idea have general support? Do people use the words 'ship of state' in party policy or in parliament? Do you think of a ship when you see images of parliament? All contributions are gratefully received.
The term has been used, i wouldn't call it common use. There is a 'state of the nation" or 'state of the union' address that happens in Canada and the us and that term may get used slightly more. But i've certainly heard the term ship of state used in the past.
Of course - there's only so many times you want to hear your country be compared to the titanic before you tune it out
Supreme Court imposes cruelty on families
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Hey ... hey... YOU give birth to a whole universe and see if YOU don't nap for a little while after too!